177. The Respondent State did not submit on this point. *** 178. Article 24 Charter states that “[a]ll peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development”. 179. The Court notes that in SERAC v. Nigeria, the Commission observed that: The right to a general satisfactory environment under Article 24 of the Charter, (…) imposes clear obligations upon a government. It requires the state to take reasonable and other measures to prevent pollution and ecological degradation, to promote conservation, and to secure an ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources.62 180. Similarly, in its General Comment No. 14, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter referred to as “CESCR”), defines the right to a healthy environment as including, inter alia, the prevention and reduction of the population’s exposure to harmful substances such as radiation and harmful chemicals or other detrimental environmental conditions that directly or indirectly impact upon human health. 181. The Court observes that under Article 2 of the Algiers Convention, to which the Respondent State is a party, it is provided as follows: The contracting States shall undertake to adopt the measures necessary to ensure conservation, utilization and development of soil, water, flora and faunal resources in accordance with scientific principles and with due regard to the best interests of the people. 182. In the present Application, there is no dispute that the dumping of the toxic waste caused serious consequences to the environment, including 62 Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and another v. Nigeria (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001), §§ 52-53. 45